ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Broken Bow (episode)
FA nominations FA nomination (11 Oct - 21 Oct 2005, Failed) ; : The episode summary is short and concise, while the Background Information section is very detailed. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 11:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC) :Mild oppose. The summary is good but for a pilot episode there should be more background/continuity/ephemera that distinguishes this. "Emissary" and "These Are the Voyages" are examples of what I mean; they don't just have a detailed background but additional sections that make them FA worthy, this particular episode article doesn't appear more significant than a run of the mill episode when it certainly should. Logan 5 15:04, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC) :Oppose for the moment, while the peer review is still running. Perhaps it would be best not to have both at the same time, but instead nominate an article here only after it has passed the review. -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC) FA nomination (26 Oct - 07 Nov 2005, Successful) *A short and concise summary (especially for a two-parter) with an extremely detailed Background Information section, packed with information about this episode. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 02:11, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) **'Strong Support'. An wonderful job, Defiant, as always. I'm glad I could help out with the background info for this. Do we make a great team, or what? :) --From Andoria with Love 22:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Comment' Because its the first episode, I think some information about the initial hostility/distrust between Vulcan and Humans should be present. Also the temperal war should be slighty made more clear because it is used in the episodes following this one. -- Q 20:29, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support' Perfect summary lenghth and much better background info than the last time this came around. I'd still like to see a note on UESPA and possibly the uniforms though. And one other question, are we sure Archer's "knocking you on your ass" comment was directed at T'Pol? I thought it was a different Vulcan. Logan 5 13:44, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. Makon 22:34, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I hope I was not presumptive in addressing the cosmetic issues that might otherwise dissuade me from supporting the nomination.--Fenian 04:15, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:25, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Fix? I don't know that placing all the images in a table qualifies as a "fix" -- i'd prefer the simplicity of using the thumbnail wiki markup and place the pictures separately as Defiant tried to do. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC) :It was originally a fix because the old combination of thumbs and table Defiant restored after my edit demolished the layout at some resolutions (1200x800 e.g.). If somebody reverts, he schould make it better, not worse. -- 19:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC) ::I've protected the page, for the time being. However, I would be willing to discuss this article with the unregistered user who keeps reverting my changes. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 12:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :::Something should be done with the images of Soval and Phlox, the images float above the text in Firefox at 1280x1024 -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 15:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ::::That's why I used the table style. I've never experienced probs with it ;-) --Memory 17:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Tos/Leonard btw: where are Tos and Leonard's pics gone? I kept them in my fix. (Memory) -- 12:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :IMO, there were too many images on this page. When I attempted to remove some of those images, unregistered users were continually reverting those changes. I protected the article from continual reverts, such as those. :However, I would be interested in reaching an agreement on whether to include the images of Tos and Admiral Leonard, so that changes (both my own and other users) are not continually reverted. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 13:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :So, a question to begin the suggested discussion - why do you believe the images of Tos and Admiral Leonard should be included? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 13:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC) ::If Tos only appears in BB, he should be included. Leonard ehhm... don't know if he appears again --Memory 13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :::I disagree. An image should be included if it is important for the article. Images of Tos and Leonard really aren't important here, because their characters are relatively unimportant for the story. If the consensus is that there are "too many" images on that page, the least important ones should be the first to go. -- Cid Highwind 15:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Does the majority agree that there have been, at times, too many images, or is that just my opinion? Also, do images have to (or should) be 200px each? If not, why not include smaller versions of the images of Tos and Admiral Leonard? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 15:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :Put them back and make all right|150px - solved --Memory 17:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Sidebar solution Links and References Guest Stars *John Fleck as Silik *Melinda Clarke as Sarin *Tommy "Tiny" Lister, Jr. as Klaang *Vaughn Armstrong as Admiral Forrest *Jim Beaver as Admiral Leonard *Mark Moses as Henry Archer *Gary Graham as Soval *Thomas Kopache as Tos *Jim Fitzpatrick as Commander Williams *James Horan as Humanoid Figure *Joseph Ruskin as Suliban Doctor *Marty Davis as Young Jonathan Archer *James Cromwell as Zefram Cochrane *Van Epperson as Alien Man *Ron King as Farmer Moore *Peter Henry Schroeder as Klingon Chancellor *Matt Williamson as Klingon Council Member *Byron Thames as Crewman *Ricky Luna as Carlos *Jason Grant Smith as Crewman Fletcher *Chelsea Bond as Lorillian Mother *Ethan Dampf as Lorillian Child *Diane Klimaszewski as Butterfly Dancer *Elaine Klimaszewski as Butterfly Dancer How's this?--Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :Cool. All in one: :Expand it on all articles ;-) --Memory 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC) As this matter seems to have become slightly more settled, I've unprotected the page. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 22:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC) :I really don't like that sort of sidebar. :*First, and most important, why do we even need to have images of all (minor) characters on the episode article? Isn't it enough to link to every character? :*Second, do we really want to have this on every episode article, because this is what's going to happen if we are creating this precedent. :*Third, if there's consensus to continue with this type of sidebar, should this really contain main, recurring and minor characters without any order? :*Fourth, the layout simply looks terrible in the table that is now part of the article. :-- Cid Highwind 22:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::Show us a better solution of the problems mentioned above. But it has to work with all browsers and resolutions (what looks terrible?). Btw: this is the first episode of ENT, so the article shall introduce to the whole series (including characters). --Memory 23:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::I don't like the sidebar either. , , and Caretaker don't have these sidebars, after all, and those articles seem to do well without them. ::I think it's perfectly sufficient to simply link to the characters in question, and then move the current sidebar pictures to the appropriate character articles (if they aren't there already). Randee15 00:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC) :::You mean deleting all images from the article? ("They don't have it" is no argument ;-) --Memory 00:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC) ::::No, I'm for leaving images in that 1. summarise the episode (the picture put on the top of the episode summary sidebar, namely) or 2. contribute to the narrative of the summary by illustrating key points. ::::Pictures of characters that are just there to show us what they look like, and aren't illustrating anything else, don't belong in episode articles imo. They belong on the characters' respective individual articles. ::::Episode articles--pilot or not--are supposed to focus around the episode and the events the episode is chronicling, not the characters themselves per se. Randee15 00:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC) Alternative layout -- since most users seemed to think not too highly of the sidebar, I removed it. Also, since some users seem to think that characters are not as important as showing events, I added the "San Francisco at night" image. It's likely that the picture was originally taken from , although a similar scene was shown in "BB" (probably even the same footage). The layout should work in most browsers, since problems have previously arisen because images were placed in text. This time, however, I split that scene into paragraphs. What do others think? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 05:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC) :But why is SanFran at night important to the article? Guest Stars are definitely more important than a view of a town. And if we don't use the image of e.g. Tos here, where then if he don't appears again? What is a key point image? Klaang in a cornfield? Imo it's the choice of the cintributors who added the pictures originally. --Memory 10:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC) ::Is this issue settled, then? ::Looking above at some entries in this discussion, it seems to me to be highly subjective what makes good images for episode articles. ::In my opinion, images of characters do make worthy images - some of those same images (for instance, Soval here) can be used on other articles, saving space in MA for other images. ::As long as the design of an article seems fine, every picture tells a story! Every image is informative in its own way, even showing what a character looks like! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 15:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC) Huh!? Am I the only one who has now huge empty spaces between text blocks (with IE)? --Memory 19:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC) :Must be - I'm using IE and I don't have any problems. What size is your screen resolution and what size have you set the text to be displayed as (smallest, smaller, medium, larger, largest)? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 22:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC) ::Theres just one big break in "Act one". If you add images you must place thumbs as block, not one subsection away another... :::What does that mean? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 01:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Background Information? *Was this episode really two hours long or was it actually a 90-minute feature-length episode like or ?--Scimitar 09:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) I checked - approximately 83 minutes. Have changed the info. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 13:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) :"Two hours" refers to the timeslot required to air the episode (including adverts, etc). Episodes are frequently referred to in terms of their timeslot length (which is why most US TV dramas are referred to as 'hour-long' when they typically last between 40-45 minutes). 'Feature-length' (ie, a double episode) and 'two hours long' are synonymous in US TV terms. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 13:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps, but two-hours only refers to the air time on US TV. What about on DVD or other TV locations? It's the same episode, but it may not be on for two hours. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 14:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I was replying to Scimitar. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 14:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::I know, but I thought there was still debate over whether to use "two-hour" or "feature-length". I apologize if I was mistaken. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::Thanks, Defiant. I was asking about the actual running time of the episode rather than the air time. --Scimitar 21:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) Peer review This article took a long time to come to fruition, but when it did I even surprised myself. It's probably one of the shortest episode summaries I've ever written (which is good because it's a double episode)! Any comments would be helpful - positive/negative - as well as constructive criticism. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 23:34, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I think this summary is a manageable length. However, I think there HAS to be more information that can be added to the end of the article. Just as Emissary has "Distinguishing DS9" and These Are the Voyages has a "Continuity" section there should be more on this article than just the current background info. In particular I think it's missing info regarding the differences with this pilot (the lack of Trek in the initial title, the fact that the theme song had words, the uniforms, the only series since TOS not to last 7 seasons, etc). There is also ample opportunity here for meta-Trek content as well (the other proposed ideas for this 4th spin-off, ratings for the pilot vs. subsequent eps, the idea of the Temporal Cold War, continuity issues re: Klingon first contact and T'Pol serving on the Earth ship). There's also the title sequence featuring photos from the real world (a first) and the different ships therein. :Some info that's currently in background could be moved into those new sections to start, and that's just what I can think of right now. Logan 5 21:17, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::I agree with Logan. The summary seems to be nice (still missing some images, and I have to reread it in detailm though), but the rest is missing something. A continuity section, like on TATV, might be a good idea for every episode. As this is the pilot, there could also at least be some information about the general setting and the characters. ::By the way, I don't know if it is a good idea to have both a peer review and an FA nomination running at the same time? -- Cid Highwind 21:49, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC) It was just because no-one seemed to be answering this peer review, so I thought it might mean that everyone was happy with the article. (It's typical of the community that something needs to be changed but I'm not complaining!) Most of the suggestions seem to be more related to the Enterprise series as a whole, rather than this episode alone. I think a continuity section would be good, although it will probably be harder to write than (since that episode is directly related to ). How does this episode relate to Trek before it? Apart from the Klingons, what other elements does it borrow? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 23:38, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC) :Aside from the events of , there's not really any other elements that can be used for a chronological timeline (although I suppose you could refer to events that this episode will lead to, such as the open hostilities between humans and Klingons). Anyways, as you can see, I've added several background tidbits since this review started. How does it look now? :) --From Andoria with Love 08:23, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::Comments? Is the Background Information section sufficiently improved? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 10:06, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC) Deleted Scenes As per recomendation on the topic in ten foward, a section on the episodes known deleted scenes has been added. Can be revised if needed.--Terran Officer 01:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Is this what they call total submission "Alien Man" Just corrected a mistake that seems to have originated here and now even ended up on an It's a Wrap auction page: Van Epperson didn't play the Markalian dockmaster from the cut scene but the alien pimp that introdudes Travis and Malcolm to the butterfly dancers. His species was never revealed but he definitely wears the leathery red and blue outfit that's being sold at the moment. --Jörg 20:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Removed text I removed the following text from the background information: *Many have claimed that the Klingon-Human First Contact seen here contradicts canon in that it seems to go against established facts from . In that episode, Captain Picard noted that initial contact between the two powers was "disastrous" and that it provoked Starfleet to change their first contact protocols. Most believe the events seen in "Broken Bow" hardly constitute a "disastrous" initial contact, nor would it instigate a change in contact procedure since it was a Klingon who initiated first contact by crash-landing on Earth. However, it is most likely that Picard was referring to repeated contacts throughout the next several decades (such as those witnessed in and ), leading to the adversarial relationship in 2218, as mentioned by Dr. McCoy in . There are some, however, who believe that first contact between Humans and Klingons came sooner than it should have as a result of the Temporal Cold War, although that claim is unsubstantiated. "Many have claimed", "Most believe", etc. are unsubstantiated and speculative. -- Renegade54 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Pronunciation Is it Broken Bow as in the bow of a boat (pronounced as in cow/sow/dow jones) or bow as in bow and arrow (dough/sew/tow/low)? 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC) :"Boh" TribbleFurSuit 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I like the way you picked a word from my list of examples! :) But how do you know it is "boh" and not "bau"? Drmick 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC) :I used the "External links" section of the article to look at . I learned that, in real life, that town is named for Broken Bow, Nebraska. And THAT town is named for a weapon found at an indigenous burial site. But, in Star Trek? Who knows? Maybe it's pronounced "boo", or "bah", or maybe the B is silent. Maybe, by the 24th century, everybody is pronouncing it with a Klingon accent. TribbleFurSuit 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC) ::It is indeed pronounced "bow" as in bow and arrow. Incidentally, the town was never referred to by name in the pilot outside of a title that read "Broken Bow, Oklahoma - 30 Years Later". The only spoken reference to Broken Bow that I know of was in , when Grat mentioned it. I can't remember how he pronounced it, though. --From Andoria with Love 04:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Removed Removed the following comment, as "Could be considered" doesn't mean it is, needs a citation in order to be in the article- In one scene, Tucker and Mayweather are discussing various planets they've been to, during which Mayweather alludes to a planet where women have three breasts. This could be considered an allusion to the Cat Woman from , the three-breasted mutant Martian from Total Recall (who was played by Next Generation alumnus Lycia Naff), or the "triple-breasted whore of Eroticon VI" from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.--31dot 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Help with translation Hello, I am translating some background informations into czech version of this article. But I can not translate this: "However, James Cromwell reprised his Star Trek: First Contact role, Zefram Cochrane, in this episode, although his name does not appear in the credits." Can you say it alternatively, more easy to translate it? Very Thanks for your help --Gogasmen 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC) from czech MA : "Rather, James Cromwell returned for this episode, in an uncredited appearance, to reprise his Star Trek: First Contact role of Zefram Cochrane." Better? Or if that doesn't work, it is basically saying that Cromwell/Cochrane (who was not a regular, "familiar character" like Quark, Picard, & McCoy were) was who the writer's chose to use as a "familiar character" to send off the new crew of this series. --Alan 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC) : I reword that whole note to something that is 1) less negative 2) consistently worded 3) and flows from point A to point B, rather than A-B-A. Hope that helps. --Alan 21:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you, I have it translated.--Gogasmen 20:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Klingon translation What does Klaang say to Moore in the beginning of this episode? Removed background I've removed the following background text and associated image: "A scope with a unique functional exterior can be seen exclusively in this episode, in close-up shots showing T'Pol using the device. However, the exterior of the scope that was later used throughout the series also appears, in several other, more distant shots, and the rapid, unexplained changes between the two styles constitute a continuity error in this episode. " The text is entirely inaccurate. T'Pol can be seen using the functional scope in close-ups in other episodes, including other season 1 episodes "Civilization" (to look for life signs) and "Silent Enemy" (to look for debris). --Le Pig 05:40, January 17, 2011 (UTC) :I removed the following 3 notes: * Gary Graham, who played Soval in this episode, previously played Tanis in . * Thomas Kopache, who played Tos in this episode, later played a male Sphere Builder in Season 3's . He also previously appeared in TNG, DS9, and VOY. He also appeared in the 1994 Star Trek film, , as the operations officer on the USS Enterprise-B. * In the DVD audio commentary for this episode, Rick Berman claims to have been apprehensive about doing another Star Trek series right after Voyager ended, but was pushed by Paramount, who wanted a Star Trek series for their doomed UPN network, to start working on Enterprise. :The first 2 of these notes do not fit our requirements of facts permitted on episode pages, as it has been argued that this type of info is more appropriate for the performer pages. Also, I find the third note to be far more appropriate for the page about the series of ENT, rather than this particular page. --Defiant (talk) 12:48, August 29, 2012 (UTC)